Marijuana Is Gateway to Hard Drugs in Twins Study

ABC ^ | 1/21/03 | Reuters

[weikel]

We people through our states have the 10th Amendment right to allow or ban anything not specifically enumerated as rights in the Constitution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[A CA Guy]

Kevin does use a lot, pass it on... it's called common sense!

[unspun]

True, and he'd also be appalled that youngsters are being incarcerated and freedoms obliterated over what is a social problem and not a criminal problem.

So we should treat it as such, like we do drunk driving, not declare intoxicants legal and available for all, as the narcoanarchists and totalibertarians would have.

[_Jim]

Interestingly, the word 'dope' is related to 'dopant' and is used in crystaline laser technology.

MUCH before this it refered to the adding of an small, select impurity to a base material like Silicon or Germanium for the purpose of creating intrinsic P and N material during semiconductor device fabrication (transistors, diodes, ICs, etc.):

What's all this PN stuff?

This article discusses semiconductors, and how they are used to make diodes (PN) and transistors (NPN and PNP).

...

Dope? Hey, that's illegal, isn't it?

Normal silicon is called intrinsic silicon (i.e. it has no impurities or crystal lattice defects). Now that we've gone to all of this trouble to make pure silicon, the first thing we want to do is muck it all up with impurities.

If we add something like Boron, Aluminum, Gallium, or Indium (once again, all from the same column in the periodic table) to either Silicon or Germanium, this creates a semiconductor with a greater concentration of holes than conduction band electrons (whew, this is getting into some ugly chemsitry, isn't it?).

We call this P type silicon. If we add something like Phosphorus, Arsenic, or Antimony (which, as you might have guessed, are all in the same column on the periodic table), we get a semiconductor with more electrons than holes in the conduction band.

We call this N type silicon.

The process of adding impurities to the semiconductor material is called doping.

[Senator Pardek]

a person with a predilection for inhaling, ingesting or injecting intoxicating substances is willing to try what is available in the way of stronger substances ...

Ethanol is the real "gateway drug".

Bring back Prohibition!

[unspun]

For the benefit of newbies and lurkers, the statist-fascist socialist cultists favor the WOD's, -- while real conservatives repudiate the constitutional violations this 'war' requires.

And by far, most conservatives repudiate both police state tactics and legal-drugs-for-all totalibertarianism.

[jammer]

Why, yes, your first sentence is correct CJ. As you might have read before from me, Utah should be able to make marijuana a capital crime if they want, while California should be able to make all drug use legal. That's also my understanding. However, the 10th amendment renders the DEA totally unconstitutional.

Your understanding of my reasoning is totally incorrect--it requires no Amendment to legalize it--it Constitutionally requires an Amendment to make it illegal. The 10th is plain, important, and damned near universally ignored except by you and me.

[Cultural Jihad]

Pure monochromaticity and coherence. ;)

[Cultural Jihad]

There is always hope, jammer.

[jammer]

By the way, the federal and state "issues" do not conflict. The states may do what they want, while any action of the feds, absent an Amendment to make drugs illegal, is and has been unconstitutional. The way you incorrectly represented my thought was by implying that anything not specifically made legal (for citizens) is illegal. That is not true: anything not made illegal for citizens is legal. Anything not specifically made legal for the feds to do is illegal and unconstitutional. Doesn't stop 'em, but that's the way the Constitution is written and was manifestly intended.

[A CA Guy]

"And as usual, you proclaim drug use to be evil & 'illegal' with no constitutional basis. No such prohibition exists. "

Existing laws don't exist for you once again and the downfall of lives by drugs is not considered evil by tpaine... Speaks volumes. DU disrupters and leftists are shaking their head in agreement with you there as well I am sure.

[_Jim]

"Single-colored (wavelength) light perfectly colimated and each (possibly) discrete wave comprising the composite 'ray' in-phase and in-synchronism with all others."

Light, like 'radio waves' follow the same basic laws of physics ...

[unspun]

And as usual, you proclaim drug use to be evil & 'illegal' with no constitutional basis.

Is God constitutional, tp?

[A CA Guy]

If that is in your heart, find a current article about that and start your thread.
Here we are reading of the confirmation of marijuana's place as a gateway drug. This just blows pro drug folks/Libertarians out of the water even more so now.

[tpaine]

We people through our states have the 10th Amendment right to allow or ban anything not specifically enumerated as rights in the Constitution.

Total nonsense. A simple reading of the 9th proves otherwise as to the emumeration of rights; and the 14th clearly says that life, liberty and property cannot be infringed without due process. Fiat prohibitions, bans, -- are not 'due process'.

By your logic, there would have to be an Amendment in order to legalize it, too, which just doesn't make any sense.

Drugs were criminalized & prohibited by an unconstitutional congressional 'finding'.

I have no doubt that in the course of time these conflicting Federal and state issues will get resolved in a court of law.

Let us pray that the USSC regains it senses, and declares the 'war' unconstitutional.

[Cultural Jihad]

Certainly they conflict. A person in California (and a few other states) can state-wise legally consume marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, but may not Federal-wise legally grow or sell it. A court will be convened to clear this conflict, since there's no physical way otherwise to procure it to consume it.

[Cultural Jihad]

Drugs were criminalized & prohibited by an unconstitutional congressional 'finding'.

We regret that you personally were not consulted before hand in 1937, but the fact remains that the lawfully assembled representatives of the people wrote the law, and has been upheld so far by every court of law ever asked to rule on it. If you have a beef about that then you really need to bring it to the attention of your Constitutionally-elected representatives.

[unspun]

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...."

This is about how people are to be regarded and treated by government and law enforcement, not about what laws against owning specifically harmful things. The words are "privileges" and "immunities."

[tpaine]

Is God constitutional, tp?

Whatta twit. -- Read the first amendment.

[tpaine]

"Drugs were criminalized & prohibited by an unconstitutional congressional 'finding'."
-tpaine-


We regret that you personally were not consulted before hand in 1937, but the fact remains that the lawfully assembled representatives of the people wrote the law, and has been upheld so far by every court of law ever asked to rule on it. If you have a beef about that then you really need to bring it to the attention of your Constitutionally-elected representatives. -CJ-


Some members of the USSC are fully aware of the congressional abuse of the commerce clause:


-- I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a 'substantial effects' test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." - Justice Clarence Thomas